ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Correction to Parliamentary Answer

Joan Ruddock: An error has been identified in the figures in the table to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, (Julia Goldsworthy), 31 March 2008, Official Report, columns 503-10W.
	Instead of providing the municipal waste sent to landfill by each local authority, the total municipal waste for each had been presented. The text of the answer correctly referred to waste to landfill; the numbers were incorrect for all years.
	The correct figures are given below.
	
		
			 Municipal Waste to Landfill, per Person (kg per year) 
			 Government Region Authority 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 
			 North East Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 87 84 37 26 49 51 19 51 59 
			 North East Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 239 87 N/A 251 329 253 N/A 68 66 
			 North East Middlesbrough Borough Council 120 98 N/A 67 85 96 65 146 103 
			 North East Hartlepool Borough Council 119 63 119 104 78 86 64 101 64 
			 North East Darlington Borough Council 494 554 561 557 605 520 N/A 488 461 
			 North East Durham County Council 525 558 558 582 567 509 N/A 407 410 
			 North East Northumberland County Council 525 481 549 567 571 514 N/A 401 384 
			 North East Sunderland City Council 485 403 517 549 575 526 501 454 428 
			 North East South Tyneside MBC 439 441 442 459 467 471 N/A 485 469 
			 North East North Tyneside Council 225 237 282 433 505 516 549 450 424 
			 North East Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC 637 696 N/A 583 639 611 N/A 465 508 
			 North East Gateshead MBC 776 764 794 911 897 724 535 471 455 
			 North West Warrington Borough Council 536 601 499 495 507 498 N/A 451 407 
			 North West Halton Borough Council 530 546 530 509 517 518 N/A 464 450 
			 North West Cheshire County Council 516 537 563 545 547 522 485 438 402 
			 North West Cumbria County Council 481 533 503 537 529 515 N/A 527 483 
			 North West Wigan MBC 584 536 525 604 642 633 592 485 426 
			 North West Greater Manchester WDA (MBC) 521 531 530 563 565 542 N/A 392 378 
			 North West Blackpool Borough Council 520 552 568 550 543 516 N/A 435 403 
			 North West Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 450 456 460 485 476 439 474 425 397 
			 North West Lancashire County Council 361 489 501 459 442 403 N/A 356 340 
			 North West Merseyside WDA (MBC) 490 524 522 535 545 534 N/A 484 473 
			 Yorkshire/Humber East Riding of Yorkshire Council 345 505 497 499 503 497 490 439 420 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 506 545 534 510 534 533 426 466 435 
			 Yorkshire/Humber North East Lincolnshire Council 431 527 496 510 496 458 N/A 136 129 
			 Yorkshire/Humber North Lincolnshire Council 597 554 509 517 518 511 497 480 398 
			 Yorkshire/Humber York City Council 561 536 528 538 545 523 N/A 461 379 
			 Yorkshire/Humber North Yorkshire County Council 476 573 570 563 563 541 538 461 443 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Sheffield City Council 296 314 160 339 242 197 187 167 69 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Rotherham MBC 574 519 546 525 476 433 418 399 375 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Doncaster MBC 568 577 642 626 600 541 535 481 469 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Barnsley MBC 492 512 536 604 549 498 N/A 471 439 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Leeds City Council MBC 481 495 501 480 478 421 N/A 371 355 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Kirklees MBC 592 577 568 510 233 159 217 210 247 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Wakefield City MDC 588 612 619 608 540 505 N/A 498 479 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Bradford City MDC (MBC) 432 470 519 520 557 572 N/A 467 452 
			 Yorkshire/Humber Calderdale MBC 501 352 442 418 494 459 389 355 349 
			 E Midlands Derby City Council 434 437 436 462 476 459 N/A 400 373 
			 E Midlands Derbyshire County Council 469 415 457 468 472 443 N/A 393 373 
			 E Midlands Rutland County Council 508 488 451 454 441 430 405 399 388 
			 E Midlands Leicester City Council 387 437 430 451 461 525 N/A 120 334 
			 E Midlands Leicestershire County Council 518 486 435 430 481 454 426 375 358 
			 E Midlands Lincolnshire County Council 343 430 431 454 436 411 394 356 323 
			 E Midlands Northamptonshire County Council 463 515 482 485 475 426 415 374 374 
			 E Midlands Nottingham City Council 246 249 222 244 302 224 N/A 232 182 
			 E Midlands Nottinghamshire County Council 424 436 409 436 434 397 N/A 297 286 
			 W Midlands Herefordshire Council 379 438 444 490 505 461 466 398 394 
			 W Midlands Worcestershire County Council 469 479 542 493 485 433 382 350 328 
			 W Midlands Telford and Wrekin Council 539 628 591 554 529 481 455 395 389 
			 W Midlands Shropshire County Council 508 542 541 563 514 464 447 407 381 
			 W Midlands Stoke-on-Trent City Council 80 87 82 105 121 111 139 141 129 
			 W Midlands Staffordshire County Council 339 352 328 328 325 319 N/A 220 245 
			 W Midlands Warwickshire County Council 486 499 483 488 475 446 N/A 388 376 
			 W Midlands Wolverhampton MBC 115 89 40 104 211 272 N/A 149 107 
			 W Midlands Walsall MBC 463 473 508 503 489 459 460 440 372 
			 W Midlands Solihull MBC 200 191 220 201 145 137 N/A 101 89 
			 W Midlands Sandwell MBC 412 419 440 424 379 439 N/A 409 334 
			 W Midlands Dudley MBC 150 127 105 97 101 72 N/A 72 73 
			 W Midlands Coventry City Council 51 104 N/A 63 185 116 N/A 80 75 
			 W Midlands Birmingham City Council 199 183 181 199 132 157 N/A 102 128 
			 Eastern Luton Borough Council 455 479 N/A 505 475 466 422 399 394 
			 Eastern Bedfordshire County Council 522 546 530 597 538 467 N/A 391 366 
			 Eastern Peterborough City Council 386 430 405 435 446 416 454 429 377 
			 Eastern Cambridgeshire County Council 400 389 388 372 384 355 355 328 306 
			 Eastern Thurrock Council 523 490 379 405 553 440 410 395 391 
			 Eastern Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 460 481 471 476 481 463 N/A 408 376 
			 Eastern Essex County Council 470 434 425 425 416 403 N/A 368 346 
			 Eastern Hertfordshire County Council 409 412 409 423 403 378 N/A 338 340 
			 Eastern Norfolk County Council 443 467 453 452 444 388 373 329 301 
			 Eastern Suffolk County Council 478 471 459 461 458 422 380 341 372 
			 London Bexley LB 169 194 258 402 522 437 398 347 263 
			 London Tower Hamlets LB 449 473 490 488 500 481 N/A 449 418 
			 London City of London 11883 10629 10172 9290 8102 6721 5626 4706 5288 
			 London Westminster City Council 633 565 518 444 358 316 200 141 118 
			 London East London Waste Authority 505 417 521 521 538 492 460 442 371 
			 London North London Waste Authority 291 254 191 277 273 275 N/A 263 206 
			 London Southwark LB 462 458 421 355 373 372 N/A 338 253 
			 London Lewisham LB 13 15 63 72 38 103 N/A 87 72 
			 London Greenwich LB 107 239 141 133 116 145 56 60 36 
			 London Sutton LB 454 427 416 459 434 413 N/A 406 373 
			 London Merton LB 526 536 450 455 476 464 N/A 402 386 
			 London Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 447 483 471 458 460 416 N/A 330 337 
			 London Croydon LB 504 509 500 531 533 511 N/A 452 448 
			 London Bromley LB 526 577 568 581 393 336 N/A 313 237 
			 London West London Waste Authority 512 541 531 540 532 511 N/A 451 428 
			 London Western Riverside Waste Authority 552 550 598 540 518 489 N/A 417 421 
			 S East Wokingham Council 393 420 406 394 373 362 364 334 313 
			 S East Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council 554 548 488 526 506 465 399 372 340 
			 S East Slough Borough Council 504 430 437 497 482 555 493 431 418 
			 S East Reading Borough Council 485 523 482 558 535 492 452 427 387 
			 S East West Berkshire District Council 505 508 504 518 545 455 N/A 449 443 
			 S East Bracknell Forest Borough Council 448 438 439 421 421 400 488 445 378 
			 S East Milton Keynes Council 374 375 N/A 438 453 408 415 390 379 
			 S East Buckinghamshire County Council 424 434 406 417 418 402 398 348 347 
			 S East Brighton and Hove Council 434 481 406 406 398 382 N/A 324 308 
			 S East East Sussex County Council 308 322 340 284 291 415 419 395 371 
			 S East Southampton City Council 434 456 448 445 476 464 N/A 152 95 
			 S East Portsmouth City Council 428 448 497 446 422 369 364 85 72 
			 S East Hampshire County Council 174 405 409 422 393 306 N/A 106 98 
			 S East Isle of Wight Council 108 222 344 399 343 335 292 213 357 
			 S East Medway Borough Council 400 441 431 447 449 421 390 368 354 
			 S East Kent County Council 444 456 451 447 450 436 N/A 405 309 
			 S East Oxfordshire County Council 446 445 424 416 427 388 N/A 341 350 
			 S East Surrey County Council 483 439 454 444 462 466 415 419 377 
			 S East West Sussex County Council 497 537 522 495 473 441 435 402 385 
			 S West Council of the Isles of Scilly - - - - - - 2 - - 
			 S West Bath and North East Somerset Council 396 387 424 436 434 435 422 366 338 
			 S West Bristol City Council 422 421 418 438 440 438 426 385 303 
			 S West Cornwall County Council 489 497 501 504 494 480 484 454 442 
			 S West Torbay Council 433 405 399 565 426 426 430 417 410 
			 S West Plymouth City Council 555 587 524 504 524 513 N/A 476 427 
			 S West Devon County Council 407 428 433 446 448 408 N/A 343 310 
			 S West Poole Borough Council 425 484 495 525 529 507 557 518 489 
			 S West Bournemouth Borough Council 453 502 503 474 477 465 N/A 451 391 
			 S West Dorset County Council 347 368 370 375 382 366 351 333 321 
			 S West Gloucestershire County Council 412 427 411 423 416 402 399 371 370 
			 S West North Somerset Council 481 463 470 544 522 465 467 443 363 
			 S West Somerset County Council 456 485 491 520 505 449 N/A 366 337 
			 S West South Gloucestershire Council 498 544 499 451 448 428 390 337 333 
			 S West Swindon Borough Council 357 369 384 382 384 372 407 352 349 
			 S West Wiltshire County Council 432 450 451 443 454 439 423 383 353 
			 Source: WasteDataFlow for 2004-05 onwards, Municipal Waste Management Survey for earlier years. ONS mid-year population estimates. 2004-05 was a pilot year for WDF and hence data are not available for all authorities. Data are municipal waste collected and sent for disposal in landfill by each local authority. N/A = Not Available

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Zimbabwe

David Miliband: The constitutional crisis in Zimbabwe continues as President Mugabe persists in his ambition to steal the election. It is over three weeks since the elections were held but the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is yet to announce the presidential results. More worryingly President Mugabe and his ZANU(PF) party have unleashed a campaign of violence against those ordinary Zimbabweans, 60 per cent. of them, who in spite of everything voted against him. Political refugees from the rural areas that were once President Mugabe's heartlands but have had the courage to express their opposition peacefully through the ballot box have been pouring into urban centres to receive medical treatment and support. Local and international NGOs are highlighting these abuses daily. Evidence that they are taking place is irrefutable. I believe all would join the Government in condemning absolutely these acts of violence which are cynically intended to punish people for the choices they have made and to intimidate them into submission should any second round of the presidential election be called.
	Meanwhile in spite of numerous legal protests by the opposition, the Electoral Commission has begun a recount in 23 constituencies. No one can have any faith in this recount. The ballot boxes have been kept in uncertain conditions. The Electoral Commission has seen 13 of their number arrested in a clear effort to threaten and punish those who did their job independently. The count itself is proceeding at a ludicrously slow rate. This only serves to fuel suspicion that President Mugabe is seeking to reverse the results that have been published, to regain a majority in Parliament, and to amplify his own count in the presidential election. If that is the case, then what we are witnessing is a charade of democracy. We can have little confidence that whatever is ultimately announced as the presidential election results will not have been sullied and contaminated by rigging during this recount.
	We continue to engage intensively to resolve this crisis and our action is focused in three areas. First, we continue to work to support all those working for democratic change in Zimbabwe. In spite of the challenges they face, civil society in Zimbabwe remains committed to democratic and peaceful change. We applaud and support their efforts.
	Secondly, we continue to work with states in the region. We believe they are still best placed to apply pressure on President Mugabe and those who surround him, many of whom recognise that it is time for change. I welcome the statements of the African Union and of the Southern African Development Community calling for the presidential results to be released. That SADC states met in an extraordinary session in Lusaka and discussed Zimbabwe and its crisis for over 13 hours shows their concern at what is happening and the threat that it poses to the stability and security of their region. But, as the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, it is important that African leaders do more to engage directly in this crisis to help resolve it. The reaction of South African dockers to the direction to unload arms they believed destined for Zimbabwe shows that ordinary Africans do not condone the way in which President Mugabe is clinging to power and beating his own people to death to ensure he retains it. If President Mugabe and those who keep him in office will listen to anyone, they will listen to their peers in the region and in Africa more widely. But if they will not, Africans and their organisations should be clear in their public condemnation of what is happening and should withhold their recognition of President Mugabe's regime. His actions pose a threat to democracy and to the values that the SADC and the AU espouse. Democratic legitimacy throughout Africa is at stake.
	Thirdly, we are working through the international community as it remains united in standing up for democracy, it reinforces the confidence of democratic forces, and speaks with a clear voice about the value not just to Zimbabwe but to the whole region of following the will of the people. At the UN Security Council session in New York last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined other voices from Africa, Europe and Latin America, along with the UN Secretary-General in calling for the election results to be released and in condemning the delay and violence. The UN Secretary-General has called for international monitors to observe any second round in Zimbabwe. We support that call and underline, as SADC leaders themselves did when meeting in Lusaka, that SADC observers must return now to observe the recount. They should be present in Zimbabwe until the election results are announced, so they may witness and ideally prevent the violence that is now occurring.
	The European Union, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and many other states have called both for restraint within Zimbabwe and for credible results now to be released. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown and I continue to engage in intensive private discussions with African leaders and others with influence within Zimbabwe and the region. Our message is simple. Zimbabwe is on a knife edge: inflation is incalculable, life expectancy the lowest in the world and human rights abuses commonplace. Those metrics will all deteriorate if President Mugabe is allowed to steal this election. But if a Government that reflects the will of the people is allowed to emerge, Zimbabwe can begin the painful journey to recovery and once again become a full part of the international community.
	Britain has always supported the Zimbabwean people. We are the second largest bilateral donor. We spent £45 million last year on support for the poorest and most vulnerable Zimbabweans. Our support helped feed up to 3 million people and provided treatment for more than 30,000 HIV/AIDS patients. That support will continue. It has become even more necessary in this period when President Mugabe has unleashed his youth militia on the people. But when there is positive change on the ground in Zimbabwe and a Government who are prepared to introduce sound governance and respond to the needs of ordinary Zimbabweans, Britain will play a full part in supporting recovery and development. It will be a huge task. But the Zimbabwean people will have the full support of the UK and the wider international community. The UK and other donors are ready to give that support when there is a return to real democracy and good governance within Zimbabwe.
	I am sure the whole House will join the Government in committing themselves to working tirelessly for that day.

HEALTH

National Deep Clean Programme

Alan Johnson: Further to the written ministerial statements given on 21 November 2007, Official Report, column 134WS and 17 January 2008, Official Report, column 38WS strategic health authorities (SHAs) have confirmed that 97 per cent. of trusts have now completed a deep clean as part of the comprehensive national programme of deep cleaning.
	Three hundred and twenty eight trusts agreed plans with SHAs as part of this national deep cleaning programme. As well as all 170 acute trusts, this included many primary care trusts with inpatient facilities, mental health trusts, learning disability trusts and ambulance trusts. All 328 trusts had started their deep clean programmes and 308 trusts, (94 per cent.) had completed their deep clean by the end of 31 March.
	Since 31 March 2008, a further 11 trusts have now completed their deep clean programmes, bringing the total to 319 trusts. Nine trusts are still undertaking their deep clean and all are due to complete by the end of May 2008. There are valid reasons for trusts to complete after 31 March 2008, such as significant refurbishments or reasons relating to patient safety.
	Information provided by SHAs shows that they have all made available the funding they promised for the programme, as set out in the written ministerial statement on 21 November 2007. In addition, SHA North West increased its planned expenditure by £5.1 million, as primary care trusts in the north-west provided additional funding to improve local services. The final total funding therefore made available for this programme at a regional level was £62.6 million.
	Clean hospitals are essential for high quality, comfortable patient care. High standards of cleanliness also encourage a focus on infection control and provide a platform for consistent hand cleaning and thorough cleaning of beds between patients. Deep cleaning is part of a comprehensive range of measures to improve cleanliness and tackle infections set out in the strategy "Clean, Safe Care: Reducing Infections and Saving Lives".
	The NHS will maintain the high standards of cleanliness that the current programme has provided. This will be monitored and performance managed at a local level. Deep cleaning will be included in patient environment action team inspection programme from next year. Specialist Healthcare Commission inspections began this month against the code of practice for the prevention and control of healthcare associated infections so all acute trusts will be inspected every year on their clean environment. We will also publish best practice guidance on deep cleaning later on this year to help hospitals continue to achieve the best possible environment for patient care.
	A list of the trusts which have undertaken or are undertaking a deep clean as part of this national programme has been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.

Health Pay Review Bodies

Alan Johnson: I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the thirty-seventh report of the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration (DDRB) (Cm 7327) and the twenty-third report of the NHS pay review body (NHSPRB) (Cm 7337) which were laid before Parliament on 7 April 2008(l). Copies of the reports are available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the chairs and members of the review bodies for their hard work.
	The DDRB has recommended that the national salary scales for all salaried doctors and dentists, and the top and bottom of the salary range for salaried general medical practitioners, should be increased by 2.2 per cent. for 2008-09. For general dental practitioners (GDPs), the DDRB has recommended a 3.4 per cent. increase in the gross earnings base. The DDRB intend this to result in an increase in GDPs' net income of 2.2 per cent.
	With regard to independent contractor general medical practitioners (GMPs), DDRB have recognised in their report that there are significant, unwarranted variations in GMP income caused solely by the operation of the minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) regardless of the workload and patient care provided by individual GMPs and their practices. They note the evidence presented to them that GMP income varied from £54.72 per patient (where there was no MPIG) to £120 per patient (where there was MPIG). In making their recommendations, including the 2.7 per cent. uplift to a GMP's global sum, the DDRB acknowledged, and therefore clearly intended, that the practical implication of their recommendations was that most practices would not receive any increase in their global sum. This is predicated on any increase in global sum being offset against the correction factor in MPIG. The Department estimates that implementing these recommendations means the 6 to 7 per cent. of GMS practices without any MPIG would receive an increase in their global sum payments of 2.7 per cent. in 2008-09. A further 2 per cent. of practices will receive some extra increase in payments as their current correction factor will be less than their increase in global sum.
	In addition to any DDRB recommendations, we have guaranteed to the profession that once the costs of implementing the recommendations of the DDRB have been agreed with the British Medical Association, the Government will ensure up to 1.5 per cent. of new investment is available across all practices for providing more services or improving the quality of care and provision to existing patients.
	The DDRB's pay recommendations have been accepted in full by the Government, without staging. However, in taking forward the DDRB's recommendations on GMP pay there remain issues that will require further consultation with the BMA before they can be implemented and that will delay payments to GMPs.
	The NHSPRB has recommended an increase in the 'Agenda for Change' pay rates of 2.75 per cent. from 1 April 2008. The NHSPRB has also recommended that the high cost area supplements and existing national recruitment and retention premia should be increased by 2.75 per cent.
	On 7 April 2008, I announced that the Department has agreed with NHS employers, UNISON and the Royal College of Nursing a proposed three-year pay package for all NHS 'Agenda for Change' staff which incorporates the acceptance of the NHS pay review body recommendations for 2008-09 in full. The proposed three-year package is now subject to consultation by members of all the trade unions covered by 'Agenda for Change'. It includes:
	acceptance in full of the 2008-09 NHS Pay Review Body's (NHSPRB) recommendations for a 2.75 per cent. pay rise for staff on 'Agenda for Change' from 1 April 2008;
	2.4 per cent headline award in 2009-10; 2.25 per cent. headline award in 2010-11; and
	additional changes to the pay structure in years 2 and 3 that would give extra financial support for the lowest paid workers, allow quicker progression up the pay ladder and increase the earning potential for hundreds of thousands of staff.
	If trade union members reject the proposed three-year deal, we will need to review the NHSPRB's recommendations and consider whether to accept, stage or abate them in the context of a one year settlement.
	I apologise that we were unable to announce these decisions to Parliament in the normal way before making them more widely available. Unfortunately, it was not possible to do this before the Easter recess as pay negotiations had not concluded. I also felt that it would cause an unnecessary delay in the consultation process and thus the payment of the award to staff if we had waited until Parliament returned on 21 April before making these important announcements.
	(1 )Cm 7337 was laid on 7 April in its pre-publication form as the printed version was not available. This version has now been withdrawn and replaced with the printed version.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Third Annual Report)

Jacqui Smith: In accordance with section 14 (3), 14 (4) and 14 (5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC prepared a report on the operation of the Act in 2007, which the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, laid before the House on 18 February 2008.
	I am grateful to Lord Carlile for another considered review. Following consultation within my Department and with other relevant agencies, I am laying my response to Lord Carlile's recommendations before Parliament today.
	I am also laying my response to the report on the renewal of the control order legislation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (published on 20 February 2008) before Parliament today.

JUSTICE

Public Law Family Proceedings (Court Fees)

Bridget Prentice: I am today announcing the outcome of the recent consultation on "Public Law Family Fees". The consultation published on 19 December 2007 and the consultation closed on 11 March 2008. One hundred and eleven responses were received from local authorities, law professionals, the judiciary and other stakeholder bodies.
	After careful consideration of these, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has decided to proceed with the increases proposed. The Statutory Instruments were laid before Parliament on 9 April 2008.
	During the course of consultation, the Government introduced an adjustment into the local government finance settlement figures to make visible the sums attributable to these proposals. The purpose of this adjustment was to ensure that a valid comparison could be made between 2007-08 and 2008-09 for each authority's grant increase. The authorities generally now recognise that funding has been made available within the revenue support grant. Indeed, the total of £40 million is likely to exceed the total fees payable because it assumes that the maximum fee is paid in each case. In reality, some cases following the new 'Public Law Outline' procedure (implemented this month, introduces revised judicial case management procedures to be introduced in all family courts) will be resolved at earlier stages and pay a lower fee. I therefore believe that we have responded in full to those responses that objected to the proposals on the basis that it was not clear that authorities had been funded, or that they had been insufficiently funded, to pay these fees.
	The second main theme of the responses was that authorities would be improperly influenced by financial considerations and would not always act in the best interests of children. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to protect children at risk of significant harm. Both the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Children's Services, in their responses to the consultation, confirmed that local authorities are not influenced by cost considerations in their approach to initiating proceedings or in their decisions about appropriate pre-proceedings work. The practical effect of the statutory duty in this instance is to require authorities to ensure that adequate budgetary provision is made to pay the necessary court fees, and to ensure that individual decisions are not affected by budgetary considerations. In practice, most local authorities pay court fees from a legal department or similar central budget, rather than from a children's services budget that is the responsibility of individual social workers making decisions on the ground, with the cost of court fees being a small proportion of the overall cost of child care proceedings. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposals do not in fact create a risk that local authorities will neglect their statutory duty causing children to be harmed.
	These fee increases are necessary to ensure that the family courts are properly funded and are designed to fit with wider reforms on child protection proceedings. They are a further step in our strategy to ensure that the system of court fees is fair and sustainable, and they reflect the long-standing policy of Governments of all persuasions that statutory fees should generally be set at a level that recovers the cost of the service provided (but no more).
	The current proposals will only affect fees paid by public bodies and not individuals. Fees for applications by parents in care and adoption proceedings will remain unchanged.
	The response to the consultation paper will be published in full within the next two months.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Publication of Q4 2007 Monitoring Statistics

Michael Wills: Today I have deposited copies of "The Freedom of Information Act 2000—Statistics on Implementation in Central Government: Q4 October-December 2007" in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
	This is the quarterly monitoring statistics report analysing the performance of central Government in the third full year of freedom of information.

CABINET OFFICE

Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector

Phil Hope: I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of the report of the annual meeting to review the compact held on 13 December 2007.
	The annual meeting looked at the successes of the compact and the challenges for the coming year. The joint compact action plan for 2008-09 sets out a programme of work designed to:
	Strengthen relationships and partnerships at national level, to deliver the national compact
	Strengthen relationships and partnerships at local level, supported by local and regional compacts and action plans
	Increase understanding of the role of the compact in promoting equality and community cohesion
	Strengthen the independence, voice and campaigning work of the sector
	Ensure the compact and codes are fully up to date in a changing legislative and policy environment.
	Following the annual meeting, we have drawn up a more comprehensive implementation plan, to support the joint action plan, with the commission, compact voice and key delivery partners. This is available on the compact website at www.thecompact.org.uk.
	This year the compact will celebrate its tenth anniversary. The Government are committed to ensuring the compact is stronger than ever. It remains integral to better partnership working and better decision making. We need to ensure that the compact becomes embedded in our day to day thinking, and that it becomes a story of change to drive better outcomes for communities and the people they serve.
	The independent commission for the compact is working with Compact Voice and the Office of the Third Sector, to oversee the operation of the compact. I have appointed Sir Bert Massie as the new Commissioner for the compact, who will push for greater compliance with the compact. I have also pledged an increased investment to the Commissioner for the compact of £6 million over the next three years and nearly £1 million to Compact Voice, which represents the sector interests. This will ensure we can drive forward better partnership between Government and the third sector.
	The next compact annual meeting will hold partners to account on delivery of the actions in the joint compact action plan. The Commission, Government and the sector will report to the next meeting. As part of the compact annual review 2008 report, the Minister for the Third Sector will report on progress in meeting the Government's commitment to three-year funding for the third sector.